D&D 5E Anyone else think the Bard concept is just silly?

[Chaosmancer]

What I've never understood is, with all the really good simulation games out there, why on earth would anyone pick D&D as their sim game? It's like trying to off road with a Honda Civic. Sure, you can do it, but, wow, it's so much more work than it's worth.

To give a possible answer to your analogy.

I have a Honda Civic and would like to try off-roading every once in a while, but maybe not enough to buy a tricked out ATV with more knobs and buttons than a car rightfully needs.


DnD was the first gaming system I learned, and one I feel I've learned pretty well. I find it easier to stretch and break this system than trying to learn and teach a new one.

Not sure if that is it for all people, but I'm sure it is close enough to true for more than a few.

 

[Brandegoris]

Precisely as I suspected from page one here...You're "trouble" with the concept of a bard as magical minstrel is actually just a generalized level of being anti-"Pansy."

I don't think I have hidden that from anyone.
Also I have conceded that My viewpoint has changed a bit because I have heard some good stuff in here

To Be clear: My mind has NOT changed as it concerns the generic Minstrel pansy however. I still do dislike the cliché Image / persona of the loudly dressed, Flirty over the top silly bard. That wont change. I just think it adds a comic element to the game that is always present and some games aren't meant to be that way.
I do Now see several great examples of how a Bard might be tailored to avoid that particular cliché and while I still don't love everything about these concepts I find them good and an improvement.

 

[Lord Twig]

Hrm, let's see. I'll admit, I'm a bit out of date when it comes to hardcore sim games, mostly cause I just don't have the time to devote to them. But, I'd include the following in the list:

GURPS (space mostly is what I played)
Harn (sorry, can't make the funny accent over the a)
Rolemaster
Pirates and Privateers (sorry, going back a few years, i know)

There have been others over the years, but, my memory is failing me at the moment.

But, to answer your point, no, I don't see D&D as narrative either. It's a mostly gamist game with a thin veneer of narrativism and sim. The wargaming roots of the game permeate pretty much every facet of play, AFAIC. Which means that things like HP faze me not in the least. They're just numbers.

What I've never understood is, with all the really good simulation games out there, why on earth would anyone pick D&D as their sim game? It's like trying to off road with a Honda Civic. Sure, you can do it, but, wow, it's so much more work than it's worth.

Gamist! That's a good term. I was thinking along a simulation/narrative sliding scale, but you are right there is a third slider you can use to define RPGs. Yes, I can see D&D as a gamist RPG. I admit I like the game part of D&D, but that doesn't change what can be done in terms of fantasy world simulation.

Really it is not hard to image a fantasy world that follows the rules of D&D. There have been numerous D&D novels that have done so. The only real sticking point is HP and healing, which is why it gets discussed so much. Other than that it can easily scratch the simulation itch for people like myself that like a rational world for my characters to live in.

As for playing a different game, I have a hard enough time as it is finding people to play D&D. There is a new version of RuneQuest that is coming out that I would quite like to try, but odds are I will just stick to playing D&D as that is the only game I can find.

 

[chikikosaotome]

There are i think a couple of problems. in previous editions it was stated explicitly that the bard didn't actually have to sing or play music. reading over the 5e, it not actually required. you don't even need to own an instrument. If you want to own an instrument you can use it as a spellcasting focus, but it isn't required. you can at your choosing just use a component pouch and use the bat guano and clump of dirt to cast your spells. this would make you no different than other casters except you have better fighting and skills.

Even then those who do choose to be creative type need not sing, as was previously stated in other editions, you can instead cite poetry, or honestly you can just talk to your teammate. You could literally be giving an inspiring speech while in the midst of battle giving your team mates something encouraging to focus on instead of being disheartned. Most movies with a fight scene often have that rallying/inspiring speech before hand, the bard can just continue to give the speech while your in battle.

going back to music, science has shown that music can have an incredibly strong impact on our emotions. take out the music from most scary movies and you lose almost all the tension. without the music the scary movie is just not that scary. so too the large inspiring dramtic moment will fall flat if you take out the musical score. heck even in the days of silent movies you still added a musical tract to keep people entertained. more over you hear stories of music literally saving peoples lives as there have been times that people who are at the limit suddenly hear a song on the radio and it inspires them to make a change in their live or even not to to kill themselves. music is powerful in the lives of people in our everyday world. So it's only natural then that in a world with magic the power already imbued in music could be amplified by magic to do incredible things. but a though i just had is does the bard even have to be singing aloud? can he just be singing or humming to themselves why they fight? perhaps the inspiration comes from those who watch their passaion as they fight.

also if your are picture a bard prancing around playing shrill music on a lute and having a hard time seeing why you'd want them in battle, for that one specific part i will agree with you. because obviously by the fact that you used shrill with means its a bad grating sound this bard doens't know what they are doing they obviously don't know what they are doing. that would mean the person your picturing is either an inexperience pre level 1 type character who just picked up a lute and is trying to learn how to use it and should therefore not be trying to use it in battle or they are intentionally being jarring as either a way to distract the enemy or draw attention on to themselves and away from another teammate by being loud an obnoxious. The trick about the bard is that they are CHARISMATIC, if they're not charismatic they just don't work as a character. someone with a charisma of 20 really just needs to stand there in the battle field and their presence alone is enough to inspire their allies and deter their foes.

So then comes the pansy comment. this is the most troubling as it takes the conversation from why/how is music supposed to help me in a battle to a debate about your own built in preconceptions about gender and your opinions on what that should include and how it should present itself. What is being found to be at fault is the "singing, prancing, and flamboyant persona" of the bard. your not really complaining that they are back row support, after all a wizard is back row support and incredibly not suited for front line combat. so your not concerned about what they do for the battle but how they do it. So it's ok for a someone to stand in the back wiggling their fingers and chanting or for someone in potentially dirty leathers calling out to the earth mother to protect the group. but the character who can inspire you music is silly? also pirates have always been flamboyant characters often dressing in silly ways as have rogue type characters as well, just look at captain sparrow or older captain hooks. heck even once upon a time's version of hook is best known as captain guyliner and he is otherwise fairly drap in all black leather. So if this is really the only problem your having issues with, then there isn't really anything anyone can do as your problem isn't really with the bard but something far deeper and personal.

 

[Brandegoris]

There are i think a couple of problems. in previous editions it was stated explicitly that the bard didn't actually have to sing or play music. reading over the 5e, it not actually required. you don't even need to own an instrument. If you want to own an instrument you can use it as a spellcasting focus, but it isn't required. you can at your choosing just use a component pouch and use the bat guano and clump of dirt to cast your spells. this would make you no different than other casters except you have better fighting and skills.

Even then those who do choose to be creative type need not sing, as was previously stated in other editions, you can instead cite poetry, or honestly you can just talk to your teammate. You could literally be giving an inspiring speech while in the midst of battle giving your team mates something encouraging to focus on instead of being disheartned. Most movies with a fight scene often have that rallying/inspiring speech before hand, the bard can just continue to give the speech while your in battle.

going back to music, science has shown that music can have an incredibly strong impact on our emotions. take out the music from most scary movies and you lose almost all the tension. without the music the scary movie is just not that scary. so too the large inspiring dramtic moment will fall flat if you take out the musical score. heck even in the days of silent movies you still added a musical tract to keep people entertained. more over you hear stories of music literally saving peoples lives as there have been times that people who are at the limit suddenly hear a song on the radio and it inspires them to make a change in their live or even not to to kill themselves. music is powerful in the lives of people in our everyday world. So it's only natural then that in a world with magic the power already imbued in music could be amplified by magic to do incredible things. but a though i just had is does the bard even have to be singing aloud? can he just be singing or humming to themselves why they fight? perhaps the inspiration comes from those who watch their passaion as they fight.

also if your are picture a bard prancing around playing shrill music on a lute and having a hard time seeing why you'd want them in battle, for that one specific part i will agree with you. because obviously by the fact that you used shrill with means its a bad grating sound this bard doens't know what they are doing they obviously don't know what they are doing. that would mean the person your picturing is either an inexperience pre level 1 type character who just picked up a lute and is trying to learn how to use it and should therefore not be trying to use it in battle or they are intentionally being jarring as either a way to distract the enemy or draw attention on to themselves and away from another teammate by being loud an obnoxious. The trick about the bard is that they are CHARISMATIC, if they're not charismatic they just don't work as a character. someone with a charisma of 20 really just needs to stand there in the battle field and their presence alone is enough to inspire their allies and deter their foes.

So then comes the pansy comment. this is the most troubling as it takes the conversation from why/how is music supposed to help me in a battle to a debate about your own built in preconceptions about gender and your opinions on what that should include and how it should present itself. What is being found to be at fault is the "singing, prancing, and flamboyant persona" of the bard. your not really complaining that they are back row support, after all a wizard is back row support and incredibly not suited for front line combat. so your not concerned about what they do for the battle but how they do it. So it's ok for a someone to stand in the back wiggling their fingers and chanting or for someone in potentially dirty leathers calling out to the earth mother to protect the group. but the character who can inspire you music is silly? also pirates have always been flamboyant characters often dressing in silly ways as have rogue type characters as well, just look at captain sparrow or older captain hooks. heck even once upon a time's version of hook is best known as captain guyliner and he is otherwise fairly drap in all black leather. So if this is really the only problem your having issues with, then there isn't really anything anyone can do as your problem isn't really with the bard but something far deeper and personal.

That's a very thoughtful Post. Thank you

I will say that I think You are reading an awful lot into the fact that I used the word Pansy. I DID not say GAY. Straight people can act like a pansy too. If Pansy troubles you I can replace it with wimp? or say I don't like the Prancing bard?
It has nothing to do with his actual masculinity. You will note I didn't differentiate between male or female in my post. A Pansy female bard irritates me just as much. Pansy is just a delicate flower.

 

[Hecubus]

I would rather see bard as loremaster, artist thing. Also I would rather "Bard" be a 5th edition third level archetype choice. Wizards have a Bard option, Fighters get to choose a "Bard" option, or clergy of some kind can choose a "Bard" domain. That way some bards are casters; divine, or arcane. Some are warriors. but all with the the bard flavor. I also wanted Paladins, monks, and rangers to be like that also. Other classes that make choices to tailor themselves as a bard, ranger, paladin, or monastic.


Sent from my iPad using EN World

 

[Aldarc]

I would rather see bard as loremaster, artist thing. Also I would rather "Bard" be a 5th edition third level archetype choice. Wizards have a Bard option, Fighters get to choose a "Bard" option, or clergy of some kind can choose a "Bard" domain. That way some bards are casters; divine, or arcane. Some are warriors. but all with the the bard flavor. I also wanted Paladins, monks, and rangers to be like that also. Other classes that make choices to tailor themselves as a bard, ranger, paladin, or monastic.

At that point you would be better off not playing D&D but switching either to a reduced but flexible class system, such as Fantasy AGE, or to a classless system.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I would rather see bard as loremaster, artist thing. Also I would rather "Bard" be a 5th edition third level archetype choice. Wizards have a Bard option, Fighters get to choose a "Bard" option, or clergy of some kind can choose a "Bard" domain. That way some bards are casters; divine, or arcane. Some are warriors. but all with the the bard flavor. I also wanted Paladins, monks, and rangers to be like that also. Other classes that make choices to tailor themselves as a bard, ranger, paladin, or monastic.


Sent from my iPad using EN World

Themes seem fairly common in subclasses: there are nature themed subclasses, arcane magic themed subclasses, divine subclasses, feywild themed subclasses, Shadowfell themed subclasses, and martial combat themed subclasses, so I could see an bard-related theme for subclasses. Casting using the bard list with either some kind of expertise or inspiration ability (depending on the class you are making the subclass for, but obviously less potent then a pure bard's ability would be). A 1/3 caster using the bard list with lesser inspiration for the rogue would make a pretty good old school bard, one like that for the barbarian would make a nice skald (have to remind people that you can't rage and cast at the same time, so the skald will likely be an out of combat utility caster), an art domain cleric, and a musical instrument pact implement (rather than new patron) for warlocks (devil went down to Georgia, fey music, and the weird piping music in all the Lovecraft stories--it is a natural fit) all come to mind (and I think it wouldn't take much to imagine bard related sorcerer, wizard, and druid subclasses)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At that point you would be better off not playing D&D but switching either to a reduced but flexible class system, such as Fantasy AGE, or to a classless system.

I agree. DnD Saga edition might be cool, but it would be a very different game.

For those who don't know, Saga Edition references Star Wars saga Edition, the very excellent Star Wars RPG wotc made before letting he license lapse. In it, you pick Noble, Jedi, Scoundrel, Scout, or Soldier, as a class. Each class gets feats and Talents at the same levels, making multiclassing really smooth, but their talents do wildly different stuff. Instead of specific ideas being their own class, they live in talent trees.

Other than the fact that it is very backloaded, and it can take till as late as 10th level to make a fairly common concept come together, and the crazy prereqs for many prestige classes, it's a really good system.

 

[Mallus]

I will say that I think You are reading an awful lot into the fact that I used the word Pansy. I DID not say GAY. Straight people can act like a pansy too. If Pansy troubles you I can replace it with wimp? or say I don't like the Prancing bard?

I think the word you're looking for is "flamboyant".

Flamboyant D&D characters are the best kind, regardless of class. Gaming is the time when you can unleash your inner Shatner fused with your inner RuPaul while trying to kill Smaug.

At least in my experience.

i.e. Bards are fine. My last, long-term PC was a Paladin with some bard in him (that is, a 4e multiclass). I still miss dear old Sir Yatagan Fracas, Knight of the Order of Treasure, Paladin of the Dragon Within, and Keeper of the Codpiece God (it was a very small god in a box he kept in his pants).